First Robot able to Show Emotion & develop bonds (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 01, 2010, 23:06 (5196 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
> MATT: I translate your final sentence as this: "The designer will have to predict a various number of responses to an equally various number of stimuli, and predetermine the outcome." To me, you might be thinking that the machine would have to constantly come to the designer to help with some issue.
> 
> No, I'm afraid that is a complete mistranslation of my final sentence, and a misunderstanding of my (clumsy) attempts to delve into psychology. My point was that if the robot was to act independently, the programmer would have to build in those inborn characteristics which in us predetermine our responses. For example, I am conscientious, and if something is wrong I need to put it right straight away. These traits will determine my response to a vast range of experiences. So too will my limited range of intelligence and expertise. All inborn. I'm not a very practical person, and so I have taken out an insurance policy. When our lavatory began to leak, I rang the insurance company straight away. They sent a plumber. He put some sticky stuff on the lavatory. It stopped leaking. If I had had a different set of inborn characteristics, I might not have taken out an insurance policy, I myself might have put some sticky stuff on, I might have pretended not to notice (it was only a tiny leak) and hoped no-one else would notice, I might have stuck a cup underneath, I might not have rung the company right away....When your robot starts leaking lubricants all over your living-room floor, will it mop up the mess, tell you to do it, rush off to the pub, plug the leak itself, ring for a robot plumber...? My point is that the general characteristics determine the responses to the individual experiences. Once these traits are in place, your robot will no doubt act independently, just as I do, but the determining traits will have been put there by the designer.
> -Okay, to see if I'm reading this correctly: Because tendencies (even with a degree or ten of freedom) had to be put down by a designer, the robot is forever... linked is the only word I can think of--to the notions and whims of its designer? I don't really know what to do with this, it; seems like the argument boils down to "Bob was designed." If we go back to the original question I posed in terms of culpability, if Bob murders someone, the only way the designer would be held responsible is if it could be demonstrated that the robot did not commit the crime in self-defense, and that the robot responded in a way unintended. If the intention of the program was for the robot to act in potentially unpredictable ways, I simply don't see how the designer would be held accountable. -I would have to ask what exactly you think the ramifications are that the robot's internal "filter" or "inherited personality traits" were built-in? It doesn't seem to change much to me... Maybe a good question would be, what if Bob builds a friend with a different personality? If we're talking generalized AI, this would be easy...-This has no immediate connection to our discussion but:
http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.cfm?section=news&tpl=article&BrowsingType=Features&ID=91421
(Not immediately pertinent, but you'll find it a good read.) -> You go on to say: "The policies don't dictate responses, only tendencies. And if the machine has the same power to override tendencies as we do...at what point can we say that the designer is necessary after pressing "on"?" This all links up very neatly to Romansh's preoccupation with free will. I really don't know what power we have to override our inborn characteristics (= your "tendencies"), but in the context of our discussion, I guess that would be the ultimate test ... can free will be built into the machine? Can technology really go all the way, and enable the robot to override the designer's programme of inborn characteristics? Your answer is a charmingly negative positive: "not [...] able to say "yes" with certainty [...] Though if pressed, I think that at present I don't see why we couldn't do it. Hard to commit." I'm with you all of the part of the way. Or maybe not.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"